Collaborative design procedures for architects and engineers

177 Pages·2008·29.24 MB·English

by  Oliver Tessmann

Collaborative Design Procedures
for Architects and Engineers
Oliver Tessmann

Collaborative Design Procedures
for Architects and Engineers
Oliver Tessmann
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;
detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
Dissertation an der Universität Kassel
Dipl.-Ing. Architekt Oliver Tessmann
Fachbereich Architektur, Stadtplanung, Landschaftsplanung
Fachgebiet Tragkonstruktion
Datum der Disputation: 03. Juli 2008
1. Gutachter
Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Manfred Grohmann, Universität Kassel
2. Gutachter
Prof. Dr. Ludger Hovestadt, ETH Zürich
ISBN 978-3-8370-6738-5
©2008 Oliver Tessmann
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Manfred Grohmann for four years of inspiring teaching and research at the University of
Kassel, as well as his invaluable support, comments, and input to my dissertation. I would also like to recog-
nize Ludger Hovestadt from the ETH Zürich for his precise comments. His input contributed significantly to the
interdisciplinary character of this thesis. I would like to thank Brigitte Häntsch and Philipp Oswalt for joining the
examination board of my defense.
My colleague Markus Schein has been a collaborator in many projects and has became a friend during my time
in Kassel. Thank you for the dialogue, encouragement and the ever ready programming support. Thank you to
Gregor Zimmermann, his approach to teaching and engineering was beneficial for my research into collaborative
design procedures. My gratitude to Mirco Becker for being a friend, a consultant, a partner, and a critic.
Thomas Wortmann and Hanno Stehling have been very generous with their technical and programming support.
Thanks to the many enthusiastic students I have had the chance to work with during the last four years. I also
appreciate the help of Yvonne Hung, Christopher Beccone and Ragunath for proofreading and commenting on
my thesis.
I would like to acknowledge Klaus Bollinger for the discussions which helped to sharpen my thesis. Furthermore I
am grateful to the engineering company of Bollinger + Grohmann for providing research opportunities in a profes-
sional environment and expressing confidence in my work. Warm thanks to Johan Bettum for the many engaging
workshops and jury discussions at the Staedelschule.
I would like to express my gratefulness to my parents and my sister Andra and her family for their support and
encouragement during my time in Kassel. And finally thank you to Kristin Sandner for being by my side.
1. Introduction 9
1.1 Thesis statement 10
1.2 Personal motivation, background 12
1.3 Key terms and concepts of the thesis 13
1.4 The case studies 16
1.5 Introduction to the chapters 18
2. Design procedures 21
2.1. Models of representation 22
2.2. Design procedures driven by structural geometry 23
2.3. The rationalist tradition 30
2.4. Procedures migrating from science to design 31
2.5 Procedures in bridge design 34
2.6. The impact of design procedures 36

3. Design procedures in the age of Cybernetics 41

3.1. Cybernetics 42
3.2. FEM - A computational design procedure 45
3.3. Second-order cybernetics 47
3.4 ‘Tame’ problems and ‘wicked’ problems 51
3.5. The programmable machine 52
3.6. Determinism vs. predictability 54
3.7 Experiments of algorithmic design exploration 56

4. Designing design procedures 59

4.1. Isler’s shells 60
4.2. The Multihalle Mannheim 62
4.3. The Sydney Opera House 62
4.4. The Philips Pavilion 63
4.5. The British Museumcourtyard roof 65
4.6. The Take Off node 66
4.7 The D-Tower 68

5. Case Studies: Form-finding, Optimization, Sizing 69

5.1. Technical prerequisites 71
5.2. Case study 1: Surface structures 79
5.2.1 Structural geometry 80
5.2.2 Structural principles of domes and shells 82
5.2.3 Structural and architectural geometry 84
5.2.4 The surface structure experiment 91
5.2.5 Results 98

5.3. Case study 2 - Space frames 101

5.3.1 Improving space frames 103
5.3.2 Evolutionary Algorithms 104
5.3.3 Evolutionary design exploration 107
5.3.4 The space frame experiment 110
5.3.5 Results 113

5.4. Case study 3 - Sizing 119
5.4.1 Surfaces and components 120
5.4.7 Preliminary experiment – A landmark tower 125
5.4.9 Design studio 1 – Fabrication constraints 127
5.4.10 Design studio 2 – Integrating analysis data 132

6. Conclusion 141

6.1 Case study 01 142
6.2 Case study 02 144
6.3 Case study 03 148
6.4 Conclusion 151

7. German summary: Kooperative Entwurfsverfahren für Architekten und Ingenieure 153

8. Bibliography 167

9. Figures 173

1. Introduction
This thesis argues for novel strategies to integrate structural design
procedures and analysis data into an architectural design process.
The overall performance of an architectural project follows from nego-
tiating and balancing a complex network of multifaceted, interrelated
requirements. Considering structure as an integral part of architec-
ture implies that appropriate design proposals cannot be generated
through single parameter optimization.
The structural design discipline developed many procedures to tackle well-de-
fined problems. Physical, digital and mathematical models are used to approxi-
mate material properties and determine their behavior. The reliability of those
design procedures ensures that similar starting conditions always yield similar
results.
Architectural design recently experienced the migration of algorithmic procedures
through scripting and programming into the computer-aided design (CAD) envi-
ronment. In contrast to the collaborating engineers, architects use those formal
procedures for design exploration on the search for novelty.
The thesis seeks to interface both approaches by the means of digital tools. Ar-
chitectural design is predominately conducted as a negotiation process of various
factors but often lacks rigor and data structures to link it to quantitative proce-
dures. Numerical structural design on the other hand could act as a role model for
handling data and robust optimization but it often lacks the complexity of architec-
tural design, the goal is to bring together robust methods from structural design
and complex dependency networks from architectural design processes. Well
known structural design procedures used to find or optimize form are confronted
with architectural methods which do not necessarily rely on mere quantitative
aspects.
1.1 Thesis statement
Design strategies of architects and engineers obviously differ. One major reason
is seen in the different nature of problems both disciplines have to deal with.
While engineering problems can be approached with scientific rigor, predefined
methods and procedures architects have to incorporate many aspects which are
not only non-quantifiable but furthermore their quality depends on subjective cri-
teria. While one discipline is carefully engaged in providing security and deter-
minability by relying on established procedures the other urges for design explo-
ration, novelty generation, artistic expression and sometimes personal style.
To a certain extent this polarizing statement is a cliché which ignores the numer-
ous examples of engineers and architects who do not embody this stereotypes.
Nevertheless the historical development of both disciplines and their current edu-
cational agendas explain and reveal the different understanding and approaching
of design tasks. One major gap between both realms emerged in the 16th centu-
ry. At that time scientific procedures were developed which still define occidental
thinking and the way we conduct research today.
10